Towards a United Ireland

Happyman42

pablomakaveli wrote: »

Then what do you propose? If we're agreed that a UI is not necessary then surely its just a matter of working within the current situation to make it work.

It is my opinion that the only workable solution is a UI, and British withdrawal, (which is the constant threat to the peace). Diehard Loyalists would never be able or let mount a campaign of any force, and history shows us that they capitulate if the expected armageddon doesn't arrive, which I don't think it will. The southern Irish for all their faults would make sure the welcome would be warm and genuine. I think that is evident already. It has to be achieved by making it an attractive proposition for everybody on this island to have a new concensus and a new way of governing for all the people. The current incumbenents of both governments are only helping people to come to that conclusion!

SoulandForm

pablomakaveli wrote: »

Thats just straying into CT nonsense. Especially when getting rid of NI would actually serve the British better than stoking a conflict that would cost them a lot.

Collusion between the British State and the Loyalist death squads was once dismissed as CT nonsense- it cant be anymore. Are you denying that the experience the BA took from the troubles as well as the training that it gave its troops in the context of the cold war was not seen as extremely valuable by it?

The British state has various ideological and strategic reasons for holding unto the six counties.

pablomakaveli

Happyman42 wrote: »

It is my opinion that the only workable solution is a UI, and British withdrawal, (which is the constant threat to the peace). Diehard Loyalists would never be able or let mount a campaign of any force, and history shows us that they capitulate if the expected armageddon doesn't arrive, which I don't think it will. The southern Irish for all their faults would make sure the welcome would be warm and genuine. I think that is evident already. It has to be achieved by making it an attractive proposition for everybody on this island to have a new concensus and a new way of governing for all the people. The current incumbenents of both governments are only helping people to come to that conclusion!

You said in an earlier post that a UI was not a necessary destination for the process.

Youre basically making a lot of assumptions about the viability of NI joining to become a UI. You only have to look and see how angry the loyalists got over the recent flag issue. You could reasonably amplify that anger 100 times if they were being absorbed into a UI.

Its more of a case that you want to believe it will be ok because you really want a UI. There seems to be absolutely no evidence to suggest that a transition to a UI would be peaceful.

pablomakaveli

SoulandForm wrote: »

Collusion between the British State and the Loyalist death squads was once dismissed as CT nonsense- it cant be anymore. Are you denying that the experience the BA took from the troubles as well as the training that it gave its troops in the context of the cold war was not seen as extremely valuable by it?

The British state has various ideological and strategic reasons for holding unto the six counties.

Only in bomb disposal. But even then it would have been something they could have done without. You're really overestimating the importance of NI to the UK when in reality it has been a financial black hole for the UK for decades.

SoulandForm

pablomakaveli wrote: »

Only in bomb disposal. But even then it would have been something they could have done without. You're really overestimating the importance of NI to the UK when in reality it has been a financial black hole for the UK for decades.

No in engaging with and in "unconventional warfare" over all. Its one of the reasons that the BA was far more effective in Iraq than the Americans were- I believe that they themselves admitted this.

pablomakaveli

SoulandForm wrote: »

No in engaging with and in "unconventional warfare" over all. Its one of the reasons that the BA was far more effective in Iraq than the Americans were- I believe that they themselves admitted this.

They gained experience from it no doubt but they ultimately didnt want to be in there. The cost of the conflict both in terms of life as well as the monetary cost wouldnt have been shrugged off for some combat experience for soldiers.

Happyman42

pablomakaveli wrote: »

You said in an earlier post that a UI was not a necessary destination for the process.

Youre basically making a lot of assumptions about the viability of NI joining to become a UI. You only have to look and see how angry the loyalists got over the recent flag issue. You could reasonably amplify that anger 100 times if they were being absorbed into a UI.

Its more of a case that you want to believe it will be ok because you really want a UI. There seems to be absolutely no evidence to suggest that a transition to a UI would be peaceful.

I also said that Unionist politics is divorced from the ordinary Unionist, how many times have you heard Unionists politicians cry foul, forecast armageddon, and then it all peeters out because the ordinary decent Unionist won't sustain the protest?
I believe that it will take SF sharing power here in the south to get a proper discussion about our shared futures on the table in a comprehensive and fully transparent way. The British will be all for that and will offer inducements physically and by making it clear that their involvement is limited in time. (they are already doing that, and it should be very clear to Unionists that that is what they are being told) I'm not sure their political masters are willing to say it openly but they know it, have no doubts about that. That is why they are doing their level best to keep the final flames of extremeism stoked (without being caught at it of course)

marienbad

SoulandForm wrote: »

No in engaging with and in "unconventional warfare" over all. Its one of the reasons that the BA was far more effective in Iraq than the Americans were- I believe that they themselves admitted this.

I am afraid you are just a victim of the marvellous British Army PR machine. They made their reputation in fighting unconventional warfare way back in the 50's in the Malayan conflict.

By the time of Iraq/Afganistan they were a pale shadow of that and were in many ways a liability to the Americans, But then the PR kicks.

marienbad

Happyman42 wrote: »

I also said that Unionist politics is divorced from the ordinary Unionist, how many times have you heard Unionists politicians cry foul, forecast armageddon, and then it all peeters out because the ordinary decent Unionist won't sustain the protest?
I believe that it will take SF sharing power here in the south to get a proper discussion about our shared futures on the table in a comprehensive and fully transparent way. The British will be all for that and will offer inducements physically and by making it clear that their involvement is limited in time. (they are already doing that, and it should be very clear to Unionists that that is what they are being told) I'm not sure their political masters are willing to say it openly but they know it, have no doubts about that. That is why they are doing their level best to keep the final flames of extremeism stoked (without being caught at it of course)

You don't seem to consider any solution or way forward but your own. It is simply not going to happen , or at least not in the way you think it is.

I have no doubt if a referendum were held right now on both sides of the border and the result was to be legally binding then it would be a resounding defeat in both jurisdictions . And why ? Because when push come to shove it all boils down to '' the economy stupid''.

The taxpayer in the republic can't afford the subsidy and the taxpayer up north can't live without it . So what is the solution ? The best of all possible solutions ! Stick it to the UK taxpayer and we can still be true to our nationalist/unionist pipedreams .

The only way we are going to have a united Ireland is in the context of Europe, as the continent become more integrated such local divisions diminish and highlight our commonality .

But we are talking lifetimes here, 50, 75 even a 100 years. That is of course if you wish to avoid terrible violence.

Iwasfrozen

SoulandForm wrote: »

Collusion between the British State and the Loyalist death squads was once dismissed as CT nonsense- it cant be anymore. Are you denying that the experience the BA took from the troubles as well as the training that it gave its troops in the context of the cold war was not seen as extremely valuable by it?

The British state has various ideological and strategic reasons for holding unto the six counties.

Except that really is CT nonsense. The UK is not Oceania. :rolleyes:

Happyman42

marienbad wrote: »

You don't seem to consider any solution or way forward but your own. It is simply not going to happen , or at least not in the way you think it is.

I have no doubt if a referendum were held right now on both sides of the border and the result was to be legally binding then it would be a resounding defeat in both jurisdictions . And why ? Because when push come to shove it all boils down to '' the economy stupid''.

The taxpayer in the republic can't afford the subsidy and the taxpayer up north can't live without it . So what is the solution ? The best of all possible solutions ! Stick it to the UK taxpayer and we can still be true to our nationalist/unionist pipedreams .

The only way we are going to have a united Ireland is in the context of Europe, as the continent become more integrated such local divisions diminish and highlight our commonality .

But we are talking lifetimes here, 50, 75 even a 100 years. That is of course if you wish to avoid terrible violence.

It's just my opinion and what I want. Keep your hair on.
What are we going to do about the terrible violence that is growing and will continue to grow? What will your solution be if some of these groups manage to wreck the peace? As I say, we are 'in' a process, it is not the end of a process.
Like it or not the 'country' is becoming more and more integrated, that eases the changeover and convinces those moderates who make up the majority on the island.
What you should not do is proscribe the debate, yes, it will take time. But I know the argument can be won because I live with nuisance of a border and can see everyday how we would all benefit economically from integration. Subsidies from the UK will fall anyway, it is and will be part of their way to convince Unionists of an alternative.

Bertie Woot

SoulandForm wrote: »

Collusion between the British State and the Loyalist death squads was once dismissed as CT nonsense- it cant be anymore. Are you denying that the experience the BA took from the troubles as well as the training that it gave its troops in the context of the cold war was not seen as extremely valuable by it?

The British state has various ideological and strategic reasons for holding unto the six counties.

Utter nonsense. Successive British government's since the early 70's have been attempting to excommunicate Northern Ireland and sacrifice the six counties to the reunification drive of violent Irish Republicanism. The only reason the 6 counties remain part of the UK today is because Unionism whose adherents constitute the majority presence in the six counties have no desire to consent to Irish reunification.

Peter Brooke under the last British Conservative government pre-Blair stated categorically that they had "no strategic or economic interest in Northern Ireland". They don't. The British government would like nothing more than to wash its hands of NI once and for all.

As regards British security force and Loyalist paramilitarist collusion, it's risible to hear SF-IRA supporters condemn it, just as it's embarrassing to listen to the Shinners hypocritically condemn every act of Dissident Republican violence. When McGuinness branded them "traitors", most people on the Unionist side were roaring in the aisles.

SoulandForm

Bertie Woot wrote: »

As regards British security force and Loyalist paramilitarist collusion, it's risible to hear SF-IRA supporters condemn it, just as it's embarrassing and hypocritical to listen to the Shinners condemn every act of Dissident Republican violence. When McGuinness branded them "traitors", most people on the Unionist side were roaring in the aisles.

Can you show me a post where I have expressed support for the Provisional movement at any stage its history?

Bertie Woot

SoulandForm wrote: »

Can you show me a post where I have expressed support for the Provisional movement at any stage its history?

In saying "it's risible to hear SF-IRA supporters condemn it", I was not referring to you. But it must be said that the terminology you use eg. "Loyalist death squads" would firmly place you in the Republican outrageous hypocrisy camp.

SoulandForm

Bertie Woot wrote: »

Utter nonsense. Successive British government's since the early 70's have been attempting to excommunicate Northern Ireland and sacrifice the six counties to the reunification drive of violent Irish Republicanism. The only reason the 6 counties remain part of the UK today is because Unionism whose adherents constitute the majority presence in the six counties have no desire to consent to Irish reunification.

Peter Brooke under the last British Conservative government pre-Blair stated categorically that they had "no strategic or economic interest in Northern Ireland". They don't. The British government would like nothing more than to wash its hands of NI once and for all.

As regards British security force and Loyalist paramilitarist collusion, it's risible to hear SF-IRA supporters condemn it, just as it's embarrassing to listen to the Shinners hypocritically condemn every act of Dissident Republican violence. When McGuinness branded them "traitors", most people on the Unionist side were roaring in the aisles.

They said that to help the Provisional movement get its followers on board- I cant find it now but years later Gordon Brown directly contradicted that statement. Yes in the mid-70s the Labour government of the time did seriously consider with drawing but a spiral of sectarian violence from both sides in Belfast put them off (Billy McKree was later stood down from his post for letting it happen but by than the damage had been well and truelly done )- but with Thatcher everything changed and with the growing threat to the UK in Scotland and Wales there is simply no way that they will happily let Northern Ireland go. There is also no comparison with today's "dissidents" and the Provisional movement- clearly most of Provos were not ideological Republicans but rather for either good or ill "Catholic Defenders" basically otherwise they would never have accepted the GFA.

Bertie Woot

SoulandForm wrote: »

They said that to help the Provisional movement get its followers on board- I cant find it now but years later Gordon Brown directly contradicted that statement. Yes in the mid-70s the Labour government of the time did seriously consider with drawing but a spiral of sectarian violence from both sides in Belfast put them off (Billy McKree was later stood down from his post for letting it happen but by than the damage had been well and truelly done )- but with Thatcher everything changed and with the growing threat to the UK in Scotland and Wales there is simply no way that they will happily let Northern Ireland go.

You've got to be kidding. NI is the part of the UK which has caused successive British administrations the most headache. The current administration is facing a challenge to UK stability with Scottish Nationalism, but the Scots will vote to remain within the UK, of that I am certain. And although the Union is provided with great support by Ulster Unionists, Cameron and Clegg would gladly pull the plug on NI in an instant if they thought there would be no prospect of fierce Unionist resistance and consequent civil war.

There is also no comparison with today's "dissidents" and the Provisional movement- clearly most of Provos were not ideological Republicans but rather for either good or ill "Catholic Defenders" basically otherwise they would never have accepted the GFA.

The Republican movement has had its internal divisions, and none more salient than when the movement split in 1969 into the Official IRA and the Provisional IRA. The next split within Republicanism occurred in 1986 with the breakaway "Republican Sinn Fein", who have been in collusion with today's dissidents.

Also, the Provisionals effectively abandoned the Socialist element of Irish Republicanism to fully concentrate on the nationalist struggle. The dissident "Republican Network for Unity" (RNU) published a document "Standing Outside The Peace Process" and a follow-up document entitled "Core Principles of Revolutionary Republicanism" where they spell out their commitment to resurrecting the Socialist aspect of Irish Republicanism.

I don't agree with Dissident violence, see it as even more futile and senseless than the Provisional's campaign, but I do agree with the RNU analysis that the 32 county Irish Republic of the future must be Socialist in nature, as there is no point in overcoming one form of oppression to permit another (capitalism) to continue to ruthlessly exploit the Irish working class.

woodoo

marienbad wrote: »

The taxpayer in the republic can't afford the subsidy and the taxpayer up north can't live without it .

Great point and very true.

Chuck Stone

marienbad wrote: »

The taxpayer in the republic can't afford the subsidy and the taxpayer up north can't live without it .

woodoo wrote: »

Great point and very true.

I don't understand why people think that moves toward a UI would suddenly become the economic burden of the ROI overnight - or even that there would be an overnight tipping point.

There'd probably be funding from England, Ireland and the EU for a transition period.

Iwasfrozen

Chuck Stone wrote: »

I don't understand why people think that moves toward a UI would suddenly become the economic burden of the ROI overnight - or even that there would be an overnight tipping point.

There'd probably be funding from England, Ireland and the EU for a transition period.

lol England ceding territory and money? Keep dreaming.

marienbad

Chuck Stone wrote: »

I don't understand why people think that moves toward a UI would suddenly become the economic burden of the ROI overnight - or even that there would be an overnight tipping point.

There'd probably be funding from England, Ireland and the EU for a transition period.

That is partly the very point I am making, it could not possibly be overnight and the transition, if there is one ,could be very lengthy.

Zombrex

Chuck Stone wrote: »

I don't understand why people think that moves toward a UI would suddenly become the economic burden of the ROI overnight - or even that there would be an overnight tipping point.

There'd probably be funding from England, Ireland and the EU for a transition period.

How long would the "transition period" be? 10 years? 25 years? 100 years?

Northern Ireland has serious long term structural and economy problems. Ireland is in no more of a position to sort those out than the UK is, nor will simply throwing money at the issue make it go away. It will take decades for the UK to sort out Northern Ireland to the point where reunification would be anything other than an economic disaster for the island. And that is if they started right now, which they aren't going to.

And for what exactly? Swapping one distant parliament for another distant parliament? This notion that some how changing the name on the box is going to change anything significantly in Northern Ireland is just stupid. N.I needs to fix its own internal economic problems, which have little if anything to do with which larger country they belong to.

When you have a building that is on fire you call the fire brigade, not the sign company.

Chuck Stone

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

lol England ceding territory

Ceding? More like shearing a 5th wheel or lancing an abcess.

and money?

Do the math.

If the north is costing, let's say, 2 billion a year every year from here to eternity that's 2Bn x ∞

If there was a period of restructuring for 10/20 years that would be

2bn x 10/20 years and then the hot potato can be dropped forever more.

A bargain.

Keep dreaming.

A refreshing change from your quasi-Unionist nightmares I would say.

An Coilean

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Do the math.

If the north is costing, let's say, 2 billion a year every year from here to eternity that's 2Bn x ∞

If there was a period of restructuring for 10/20 years that would be

2bn x 10/20 years and then the hot potato can be dropped forever more.

A bargain.

The Idea that the establishment of a UI would be an overnight event or that the UK would simply cut and run are simply nonsense.

The UK has a vested interest in its nearest neighbour being stable, in the event of a UI, they won't support a transition period because it is the right or nice thing to do, they will support it because it is in their national interest to do so.

Chuck Stone

Zombrex wrote: »

How long would the "transition period" be? 10 years? 25 years? 100 years?

16½ years.

Northern Ireland has serious long term structural and economy problems. Ireland is in no more of a position to sort those out than the UK is, nor will simply throwing money at the issue make it go away.

I agree.

It will take decades for the UK to sort out Northern Ireland to the point where reunification would be anything other than an economic disaster for the island.

Decades you say? How long did it take Japan and Germany to recover from utter devastation? The north is small beans comparatively. I think you're being pessimistic.

And for what exactly? Swapping one distant parliament for another distant parliament?

OMG no! 'The will of the people' and democracy and all that - shure that's just a load of nonsense that is.

N.I needs to fix its own internal economic problems, which have little if anything to do with which larger country they belong to.

This is bull****.

The economic problems have everything to do with the larger country. The very creation of the state was okayed by London. The London government done nothing to stop the mad dogs of Unionism from turning it into a sectarian cesspit. They did fuck all until Loyalists were prevented from marching the Garvaghy road by the BA sending the message that the days of domination were done. The London govt helped break it so they can help to fix it.

Iwasfrozen

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Ceding? More like shearing a 5th wheel or lancing an abcess.



Do the math.

If the north is costing, let's say, 2 billion a year every year from here to eternity that's 2Bn x ∞

If there was a period of restructuring for 10/20 years that would be

2bn x 10/20 years and then the hot potato can be dropped forever more.

A bargain.



A refreshing change from your quasi-Unionist nightmares I would say.

Or they could just dump it on our lap and say "as per the terms of the GFA, your problem." Then walk away without spending 2bn for the next 10/20 years.

Chuck Stone

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Or they could just dump it on our lap and say "as per the terms of the GFA, your problem." Then walk away without spending 2bn for the next 10/20 years.

Yes. In your unionist dystopian nightmares. Remember that 7bn 'loan' the UK gave to prop up a failing system they'd invested billions in Ireland? Why would they do such a stupid thing?

Self interest.

Chancellor George Osborne has told MPs it is in the UK interest to join a rescue package for the Irish economy - including a direct bilateral loan.

He said Ireland was a "friend in need", a major trading partner with a banking sector closely linked to the UK's.

bbc.co.uk/news

Iwasfrozen

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Yes. In your unionist dystopian nightmares. Remember that 7bn 'loan' the UK gave to prop up a failing system they'd invested billions in Ireland? Why would they do such a stupid thing?

Self interest.

It's in our interest to dump NI but since there are people like you who want to destabilise the country I'm partial to the belief there are illogical people out there. The British are a proud people with a proud history they'll dump NI all right but there will be no golden handshake.

Hopefully we are smart enough to keep Britain's problem in Britain and not get involved.

Chuck Stone

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

It's in our interest to dump NI but since there are people like you who wants to destabilise the country I'm partial to the belief there are illogical people out there.

It's really not clear what you're trying to say here.

The British are a proud people with a proud history they'll dump NI all right but there will be no golden handshake.

Leaving aside your stomach churning fawning - it would be more like a gladly granted redundancy package for a troublesome employee that was a nett loss to the company.

Hopefully we are smart enough to keep Britain's problem in Britain and not get involved.

What?

SoulandForm

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

It's in our interest to dump NI but since there are people like you who want to destabilise the country I'm partial to the belief there are illogical people out there. The British are a proud people with a proud history they'll dump NI all right but there will be no golden handshake.

Hopefully we are smart enough to keep Britain's problem in Britain and not get involved.

After all that Ulster has given the rest of Ireland- who exactly is this "our" you are talking about?

The Shinners have no head but you seem to lack a heart.

Iwasfrozen

Chuck Stone wrote: »

It's really not clear what you're trying to say here.

Leaving aside your stomach churning fawning - it would be more like a gladly granted redundancy package for a troublesome employee that was a nett loss to the company.

What?

Except there in no requirement on Britain to provide this redundancy.

It's not our problem. We have a good country here, I don't want to mess that up for the sake of NI.